Latest news with #TribalLeadersSummit
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
University of Arizona faculty say administrator causing severe harm to Native students
Photo by University of Arizona After several Native students at the University of Arizona expressed their concerns about student safety regarding an assistant vice provost, multiple Native faculty members are calling for immediate action from university leadership to ensure that Indigenous students receive the support they need for success. The Native American Faculty Group wrote in a letter to UofA President Dr. Suresh Garimella and other top administrators that 'Tessa L. Dysart is actively causing and has caused severe harm to the UA Native American community' since she was appointed assistant vice provost for the Office of Native American Initiatives (NAI) in 2024. Six Native faculty members wrote that students have approached them since the fall of 2024 to voice their concerns about their safety on campus. 'In our culture, we allow our children to speak, and we listen,' the group wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The faculty members who signed and sent the letter include Karletta Chief (Diné), Andrew Curley (Diné), Stephanie Russo Carroll (Ahtna-Native Village of Kluti-Kaah), Jameson D. Lopez (Quechan), Sheilah E. Nicholas (Hopi) and Valerie Shirley (Diné). As professors, they said that they have witnessed 'disturbing events' that do not align with leading protocols to support Indigenous students in higher education. The letter outlines the concerns raised by students since Dysart took office, including her lack of support for student-led academic work on the Land Back movement, community panels and discussions, and her physical attempt to silence a student during the Tribal Leaders Summit. Nearly 100 people — some faculty, some students, some alumni — have signed onto the letter to back the faculty calling on the university to remove Dysart as assistant vice provost. 'We find Dysart's actions to be unprofessional, misaligned with the interests of students, and, at times, clear attempts at intimidation — behavior that is unbecoming of a senior administrator who claims to advocate for Native American students,' the letter states. Several Native students and staff have shared with the faculty group how Dysart is 'sowing harm, district and division within the UA Native community.' Dysart lacks the qualifications to be the assistant vice provost, according to the faculty group, because she has never worked with Native American student admissions, retention or service programs in higher education, nor has she published any work related to Native American student retention or advancement. During Dysart's interview process, the faculty group alleged that she claimed to have longstanding relationships with Native law students, but they had consistently heard otherwise from the Native law community. 'Dysart's portrayal of her experience is misleading,' they wrote, adding that she has worked at UofA since 2017 but only became involved with the Native Faculty Group within the past three years. Dysart has no prior connection with the Native American communities at UA, in Tucson, Arizona or the Southwest, according to the faculty group. The faculty group also expressed concerns about leaders in the Native American Advancement and Tribal Engagement (NAATE) office, including Levi Esquerra and Kari McCormick. Due to the ongoing concerns involving NAI and NAATE leadership, the faculty group said they cannot in 'good faith' recommend UofA to Indigenous students. The group wrote that they would rather refer Indigenous students to Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University due to the well-qualified administrators running their Native American initiatives. Dysart lacks the stellar reputation and qualifications of the Native Higher Administrators at ASU or NAU, according to the faculty group, and she does not possess the qualifications of many researchers in Native American education. 'Dysart earns $167,116 per year, yet there is no accountability, review, or annual reports showing her performance serving Native American faculty and staff,' the letter states. 'We have no confidence in Tessa Dysart.' The Arizona Mirror reached out to UofA and Dysart for comment, but did not receive a response. As part of the letter, the faculty group shared their disappointment in the consolidation of the Native American Student Affairs cultural center and the termination of its director, Julian Juan. Under Juan's leadership, the faculty group said that the Indigenous community at the University of Arizona has had only positive experiences. 'As a tight-knit community, we have consistently witnessed Juan's advocacy in fostering a safe and supportive space at NASA even as Dysart, Esquerra and McCormick contribute to a climate of hostility,' the letter said, noting that Juan is one of only three Tohono O'odham directors in the history of Native American Student Affairs, which is commonly referred to as NASA. 'In contrast to Dysart, Juan has deep connections and experience with tribal leaders and the local community,' the faculty wrote. 'Juan understands the importance of creating culturally appropriate programs and activities that create a sense of belonging for Native American students struggling to find their place and belonging within the Wildcat community.' UofA fired Juan on May 27. The university wrote in his termination letter that he failed to fulfill his duties as director. The faculty group expressed appreciation that NASA will continue to exist, but they 'adamantly oppose' moving it under Dysart's supervision at NAI, citing students' consistent concerns about their safety around her and her limited experience in student affairs. The faculty group is calling on Patricia Prelock, the new provost and senior vice president of academic affairs at UofA, to return NASA under the office of the provost, remove Dysart, reinstate Juan, reopen the NAI assistant vice provost position, create a Native American Faculty Council and maintain the Native American Community Council. 'As members of sovereign tribal nations that have nation-to-nation relationships with the United States federal government, we ask you to respect our sovereignty and fulfill our requests,' they said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
North Dakota tribes ask circuit judges for rehearing of voting rights case
Jamie Azure, chair of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, speaks during the Tribal Leaders Summit in Bismarck on Sept. 4, 2024. Turtle Mountain, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens are challenging a ruling in a voting rights case. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens this week asked the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to review a three-judge panel's finding that they lack standing to bring a voting discrimination case against the state of North Dakota. In a 2-1 decision earlier this month, the panel overruled a North Dakota federal district court's decision that a redistricting plan adopted by the state in 2021 diluted the voting power of Native voters. 'Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice,' Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure said in a statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the suit. 'We will continue to fight for fair representation.' Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case The panel's decision didn't speak to whether the map itself was discriminatory; instead, the judges found that private individuals cannot use a key federal civil rights law as a vehicle to file cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws race-based voting discrimination. The panel in its ruling sent the case back to North Dakota U.S. District Judge Peter Welte with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. If its ruling stands, North Dakota would revert back to the 2021 map. But if the plaintiffs' request for an en banc rehearing is granted, the case would go before all 11 judges on the 8th Circuit for review. 'Section 2 is the foundational statute that Congress enacted to fight the scourge of racial discrimination in voting, but citizens in this circuit can no longer enforce the right it provides them,' the plaintiffs argue in a brief urging the full appellate court to consider the case. Private individuals and groups previously could file discrimination lawsuits against governments under just Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act without having to invoke Section 1983, a separate civil rights statute. Then, the 8th Circuit in a controversial 2023 ruling on an Arkansas voting rights case found that Section 2 alone doesn't give private parties the right to sue. Instead, the circuit declared that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General to file Section 2 discrimination cases. Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court For more than a year, the question remained open as to whether Section 1983 offered a viable alternative for bringing such Voting Rights Act claims. In a May 14 ruling, the three-judge panel decided it does not. In a majority opinion, the panel wrote that the language of the Voting Rights Act indicates that Congress didn't intend for citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983. The lone dissenting judge on the panel — Chief Judge Steven Colloton — noted in his opinion that private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions under Section 2 since 1982. The plaintiffs in their brief point out that the 8th Circuit is the only appellate circuit in the country to rule that Section 2 cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by private citizens. The circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. 'Outside of this circuit, every American citizen can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act,' their filing states. 'But as a result of the panel decision here, and the prior decision in Arkansas, American citizens in this circuit are denied that right.' The lawsuit was triggered by a redistricting plan adopted by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 that placed the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations in new districts. U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 ruled that the new map was discriminatory and ordered the Legislature to implement a new map that placed the reservations in the same voting district. Three Native American lawmakers from that district were elected in 2024: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit. 'The fair map we secured led to a historic first — a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota Legislature,' Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street said in a Wednesday statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case. 'This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government.' Marcellais had previously served 15 years in the statehouse until he lost his bid for reelection in 2022. He was reelected in 2024. Davis was first elected in 2022, then reelected last year. If the 2021 map is reinstated, three state lawmakers would move to different districts, according to the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office. Rep. Colette Brown, D-Warwick, would go from representing District 9 to District 15. Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, would switch from District 15 to District 9B, while Sen. Kent Weston, R-Sarles, would switch from District 15 to District 9. They would all have to seek reelection in 2026. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
